I'm annoyed at archers.

[Grog]

Erm, DR is an essential part of a monster's challenge as they go up in CR. While there may need to be a fix for GMW abuse, it is critical for an archer character to have access to the magical weaponry appropriate for his level. Otherwise, he's doing *nothing*.

Exactly. And this is what magic arrows are for. Sure, without GMW there's resource scarcity to be confronted - but this makes the game more interesting. The archer can use his magic arrows in every fight if he wants - but he'll run out eventually and then he's screwed if he comes up against an enemy with DR. Or he can save his arrows and be a little less effective. Or he can try to strike a balance between the two. And if the DM does his job right, the archer should never run up against an enemy he can't hurt - unless he chose to use all his magic arrows beforehand.

 

[Rackhir]

Even if you allow enhancements from magic bows and arrows to stack (I do), I would NOT allow GMW cast on bow & arrows to stack. I'd rule it similar to casting two GMW on a sword -- you might extend the duration, but the most you get is +5. If the archer wants to stack his +5's, he's got to go spend the gold or find the weapon. It may not help a lot, but it will cut down on the most blatant abuse.

Given the massive amount of bashing on GMW and bow + arrow stacking. I feel that I should point out that there are comperable features on the defensive side.

Has everyone forgotten that the Shield and Armor Bonuses stack?

Has everyone forgotten that Magic Vestment on Shields and Armor Stack?

So, if you forbid the things the archers benefit from are you going to ban the similar benefits the armor and cleric types benefit from?

Frankly to a certain extent I think the whole "Problem with archers" is over blown.

Yes, archers especially well crafted archers are very effective characters IF given proper support by party members. So those "ineffective" other characters are vital for the archers to be the efficient killing machines that they have the potential to be. In essence, you are complaining that the party is functioning as a team. Isn't that the point of the game? In Wizardru's campaign I can remember a number of times when insufficient cooperation made battles much harder than they could have been.

Finally, once you start hitting the upper levels with 7th lv spells to a lesser extent and 8th + 9th level to be sure. Spell casters rapidly start to dominate things.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Has everyone forgotten that the Shield and Armor Bonuses stack?

Has everyone forgotten that Magic Vestment on Shields and Armor Stack?

So, if you forbid the things the archers benefit from are you going to ban the similar benefits the armor and cleric types benefit from?

I see your point (and have to say that personally, I've seen no problems with archers that weren't balanced by other character types).

I don't allow Magic Vestment effects to stack (I don't allow any single spell to be cast twice with its effect stacking on the same character). Yes, armor and shields stack (which I why I allow the bow + arrow stacking), but if there were a "Greater Magic Armor" spell I wouldn't allow it to stack on both.

 

[WizarDru]

Finally, once you start hitting the upper levels with 7th lv spells to a lesser extent and 8th + 9th level to be sure. Spell casters rapidly start to dominate things.

Me, I'm not planning on changing anything. But you ought to check the lastest episode in the story hour. Scorch cast a meteor swarm, and rolled average, doing 87 points of damage. Kayleigh delivered 164 the turn prior. 9th levels spells are pretty powerful, but so are 17th-20th level fighters. It's all relative.

 

[Spatzimaus]

It's pointless for a non-warrior type (I'd even daresay a non-fighter) to try to excel on the battlefield. It's pointless for a multiclass wizard to try to excel on the spell part. It's pointless for a fighter to try to excel at sneakning around.

If you define "excel" as "deal the most damage per turn" then yes, but that's not the most important part of combat IMHO.

It's a question of offense versus defense, or power versus flexibility. If your character is optimized to do damage in one and only one way (archer, for example), and someone finds a way to make that problematic, you're out of options. Look at all the ways you can keep archers from being effective: wind, darkness, cover, closing to melee range, or Protection from Arrows. If they're not casting GMW all the time, their arrows will usually be low in magic, which makes DR a problem far more often than for melee types.

Maybe you've got an archer that can deal out 200 points a turn, but if you're too busy fighting defensively or if you can't target the guy, that offense is useless, and you've sacrificed your defensive ability in the process.

The most effective fighter-type I ever played was a Psychic Warrior. She wouldn't outdamage the pure Fighters, although the difference was relatively minor. She lost a little BAB, a little HP, and a Feat or two.
On the other hand, she was practically impossible to take down. Combat Precognition, Improved Biofeedback, Displacement, Inertial Barrier, Animal Affinity, and the Vigor series (post-errata) let her take far more damage than the Fighters could.
Then, there were those "special circumstances" that are so common at high level. Magical Darkness? Vigilance. Need to get past an obstacle? Polymorph Self or Dimension Door. Big dragon with huge AC? Deep Impact. Got ambushed while taking a bath so your weapon isn't near? (Yes, it happened) Call Weaponry.

Taking the classic Fighter-Rogue-Wizard-Cleric party is fine, if you're playing Gauntlet. Against a smart enemy in 3E, you'll spend a lot of time protecting the casters. I've been in parties where we didn't have a single one of those classes, and the only one we missed was the Cleric.

Anyway, back to the original topic: I agree with most of Petrosian's points. But, to me it's not so much that a specialized archer is so good. A specialized offensive player SHOULD be able to do lots of damage.
It's that a normal Fighter-type can still do incredible damage just by using GMW-enhanced bows and arrows with a couple Feats, far less than it'd take to scale your melee damage in the same way.

To me, the first step would be to nerf GMW slightly. How about this for a house rule:
When GMW is cast on a bow, the "temporary" enhancement bonus only applies to attack rolls (if the bow already had an enhancement bonus, that lower bonus still applies to damage rolls). When cast on arrows, the bonus only applies to damage rolls and the ability to bypass DR.
So, you only get both the attack and damage bonuses if the magic was inherent, or if you have Arcane Archer levels for the arrows.

As for the Shield+Armor thing, there's a big difference: using a Shield requires you to use an additional slot (your off hand) that would otherwise be used for more damage (either from a bigger weapon or an offhand weapon). If I have a STR of 18, I lose on average 4.5 damage for dropping from a Greatsword to a Longsword. If the sword-n-board guy Power Attacks to make up for the difference, the Greatsword guy could use Expertise to make up for the shield's AC.

 

[Bastoche]

If you define "excel" as "deal the most damage per turn" then yes, but that's not the most important part of combat IMHO.

I define "excel" as "being the most susceptible to come out alive" of the afforementioned situation.

A fighter without armor and with a few skills points could sneak, but will never be as good as the ranger or the rogue.

IMO, a good fighter has a speciality, but could match a paladin or a ranger or a barbarian on each of their field of (combat) expertise. To acheive that, you could, for example, devote your bonus feat on your specialisation and devote your normal feats on other aspect of the battlefield. That's why, IMO, prestige class shouldn't be available before 7th+ level.

 

[Arcanus]

A couple of things to make archers think first before unloading with a full attack with their bows:

1. A Mirror of Opposition somewhere in a dungeon setting. Give the archers a taste of their own medicine.

2. Headband of Reflected Arrows (from BOEM II). If an archer goes full attack on a guy wearing one of these he probally will kill himself or remove himself from combat for healing. This SHOULD scare the crap out of anyone using a missle weapon for his main attacks in combat. They aren't terribly expensive either. If this happens at least once and is successful the archer will remember it for a long time and might not shoot full attacks until he has at least checked his opponent with 1 shot first.

3. I don't remember at any point in LotR that the fellowship whined to Legolas that he kicks too much butt and he needed to tone it down some.

4. In the military we have people called COUNTER-SNIPERS.
Send an archer after the archers. Fight fire with fire. You will be surprised at how fast the archer characters will spouting out the rules on what you can't do at what range etc.. They will be crying they have cover and the opposing archer should have this penalty etc... They won't like being shot at one bit.

5. House rule that the archers need lightning reflexes and quickdraw to get so many attacks per round with their bows.
House Rule that they can't take a full attack at (insert range here) until they have shot 1 arrow at (insert ranges) to find the trajectory or whatever technical term. Only full attacks at closer ranges like point blank range (example only) until the right trajectory-angle- whatever is found. This should give your melee combatants time to engage for some fun.

 

[WizarDru]

3. I don't remember at any point in LotR that the fellowship whined to Legolas that he kicks too much butt and he needed to tone it down some.

That's because in that work of fiction, not a game, the melee characters got to kill just as many orcs as the archer did. Particularly if you watch the extended version of LotR, you'll see a lot more shots of Gimli laying the smack down and even the hobbits contributing more.

My problem with your other solutions is they are tantamount to punishing the archer for being competent. That's not a better solution, IMHO. A well designed archer delivers damage well...the problem is trying to find the fine line between presenting challenges the entire group can face while not punishing one character for being more effective at one specific task than another.

 

[the Jester]

I don't think counters that rely on a specific magic item are all that great, since you don't often encounter the same magic item time after time. I also don't like the archer-nerfing solutions you (Arcanus) suggested, because they're basically punishing the archer for being good at what he does. I think the solutions are to use a better mix of encounters... enemy archers, enemies who have better ranged attacks than the archer (thus demanding that the party close or die), and most especially judicious use of cover and concealment, especially from other party members. The npcs can adjust their position so that the tank's in the archer's way pretty easily, in my experience. The first time the party's tanks get plugged in the back by the party archer and suffer 20-odd points of damage isn't so bad, but by the fifth time of the night the rest of the party starts getting tired of it. All the archer has to do to obviate this problem is to move around for a clear shot- but this means no full attack every round.

3e is so tactical in nature that anyone who can stand still and just keep firing off arrows has an intrinsic advantage. Use the battlefield a little and it ain't so easy.

 

[Mirkhalys]

If the archers are protected by tanks (as they should), send in a Psychic Warrior with the follwing feats:

Speed of Thought
Psionic Charge
Up the walls
Power Attack
Sunder (and maybe Great Sunder)

Along with 2 or 3 other tanks. The tanks charge each other and enter melee, the psywar runs up the wall, avoid any attack of opportunity and charges the archer.

Then sit back and watch the archer die.